John Marr is right. We are being instructed to use a 700 field that *totally duplicates* the 100/240 or 100/245, when there are multiple expressions of the same work in the manifestation. If we are told elsewhere that 100/24X constitutes the AAP when there's only one expression of the work (for the *vast* majority of the resources cataloged), why in the world doesn't it constitute the AAP for one of the expressions if another expression happens to be included?
This is not RDA confusion; RDA doesn't tell us to use 100 fields, it tells us to use an authorized access point for the work/expression (saying nothing about whatever specific container we're using for the data). This is MARC confusion. Or rather, this is PCC confusion/inconsistency about the function of MARC tags.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-
> expression manifestations
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:
> > Say you’ve got a book that is a bilingual edition of a creative work.
> > 245: : Intruder in the dust = $b Intruso en el polvo / $c William
> > As I understand it, we are to create two name-title entries—for example:
> > 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust.
> > 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust. $l
> Why would we need the 1st 700:12 example above when it serves the
> purpose (i.e. to the patron) as the 100 + 245 $a? Do we really need that
> kind of redundancy, or is it some blue sky absolute perfection concept
> that RDA designers thought would have to be done for the sake of the
> John G. Marr
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
> consider what goes on in between. **
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.